David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his further input. We are anxious that this Bill be passed as soon as possible.

The new section 14AA sets out the factors which a court must take into account when considering whether a victim may give evidence through a live television link, with the use of a screen or through an intermediary. Its purpose has been to provide the court with some guidance in making its decision. In the Bill as published, this guidance is quite detailed in respect of the factors which are taken into account as part of an assessment of the victim. The amendment proposed by the Deputies seeks to retain this detailed list whereas Seanad amendment No. 23 proposes replacing it with just two factors: the nature and circumstances of the case and the personal characteristics of the victim

. Seanad amendment No. 23 was introduced following concerns raised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the original wording would require elements of the offence to be proved before a victim could benefit from a special measure. Under the original wording, the court must take into account the type and nature of the offence, the severity of the offence and other particulars of the offence. In order to do so, the prosecution would have to call evidence of the nature, type and severity of the offence. These elements of the offence may need to be proved before the victim could be granted leave to give evidence via a video link or use of a screen or intermediary. Quite apart from the operational difficulties this would entail, in many cases it would not be possible without the evidence of the victim. In such cases, the victim would not be able to give evidence via video link, screen or intermediary.

To fix this problem, the wording was changed in the Seanad to refer to two broader factors, namely, the nature and circumstances of the case and the personal characteristics of the victim. This wording is wide enough to encompass all of the original criteria but general enough not to require evidential proof. It is already used in section 41 of the Criminal Procedures Act, 1967, which has been on the Statute Book since 2001 and works well in that context. The original wording retained in the Deputies' amendment creates a barrier which the victim has to get over in order to access the special measure.

The aim of Seanad amendment No. 23 is to allow the court to consider the general nature of the case rather than the specifics of the offence. The court may also take into account any relevant personal characteristics of the victim. The amendment will make it possible for more victims to avail of the special measures.

I would ask the Deputies to seriously consider what I and Deputy O'Callaghan have said. They could actually be making things more difficult for the victim by pushing the amendment, as the victim could be called upon to give evidence. We are trying to avoid that. We want to make it easier for the victim to use the television, intermediary or screen. The amendment proposed by the Deputies would actually mean that a victim might have to come in to prove he or she would need to use the screen or special measures. That would be a self-defeating, catch-22 situation. I ask the Deputies to consider withdrawing the amendment to the Seanad amendment.

See this speech in context